Since the blockade and the ability of Palestinians to move freely have both come up, is there a reason why the Egyptian-Gaza border isn't an option?

Bad things happen to countries which take in Palestinians. Look at what has happened to Lebanon and Jordan. Egypt has a non-aggression pact with Israel. Egypt doesn't want a million angry resistance fighters antagonising Israel from within Egyptian borders. It's the kiss of death.

Espy, how is neither side right when one has a country and the other doesn't, but is actively being annexed and occupied?
How can Israel be 'perhaps marginally more' right? Please explain because I really don't understand the basics. One country occupies the other but is perhaps marginally more right. That does not compute.

About the list above. What's funny is that you use the word 'terrorist' as if it's still 2002. I think it would be more prudent, more realistic and would make for better debating if we don't speak in nancyallenesque stereotypes. Let's not outright declare every Palestinian ('them') a terrorist, shall we?

Espy said:

One side has a country and an army, the other doesn't
They do have terrorists and rockets directly targeting civilians. The fact they aren't very good at it doesn't come into a type of moral argument against them.

One side has a country, occupies and is settling the other side that doesn't officially have a country and is not allowed an army. Without one, wouldn't you simply need an underground army (then marked 'terrorist organization')?

Espy said:

One side can elect any war criminal as their leader, the other can't.
Terrorists are war criminals, and they did elect the party who promotes terrorists.

Which was then not accepted by the governments of your country and mine, which in turn resulted in a civil war of which the fact that Hamas now controls Gaza strip is the result. Yeah, I remember.

Espy said:

One side is being allowed to build a wall, the other side can't have a road.
They didn't build the wall until the people started blowing themselves up.

Convenient that it also annexes land, cuts Palestinians off from each other or their work, provide safeways for Israelis, makes towns inaccesible and destroys Palestinian infrastructure (you know, as in "This was the only road from the refugee camp to Betlehem. Now there's just a wall").

Espy said:

One side has no houses torn down, the other side eiighteen thousand.
Not sure how having rockets shot at your house is much better than it being torn down. Either way you can't live in it.

Come on man! Don't tell me that number doesn't scare you. Eighteen thousand homes! Happens like this: you come home after work: whoof! House gone!
You may want to compare this with rockets fired from Gaza but that's not a very honest comparison. In the words of Jerusalem Post writer Larry Derfner: "The [Palestinian] Kassam [rockets] have terrorized the 25,000 people in Sderot and its environs, but have caused very, very few deaths or serious wounds. By contrast, Israel has terrorized 1.5 million Gazans, locked them inside their awfully narrow borders, throttled their economy, and killed and seriously wounded thousands of them..."

Espy said:

One side can move around the whole world, the other side can't leave their country or visit their family.
That isn't something Israel has done, it is something the world has done. The Arabs are just as much at fault as anybody.

No. It is something Israel has done. If you want to move around in or out of the Palestinian territories, you go through Israelí customs. Often enough, you don't go. Like the Palestinian Football Team that got selected for the World Cup! Couldn't go to their match. Not the right papers, Israeli customs said. Kept 'em there. So the team was disqualified. That something the world has done? The Arabs at fault here?
And this is only a football team, try gettin' a new kidney there.

Espy said:

One side has had 123 children killed since 2000, the other side 1050. The side that had so many children killed was due in part because they were being used as human shields by that same side. Both have killed children, one is too many.

False. Stereotypes. Not a shred of evidence. I think you refer to the November 2006 events in Gaza - people flocking as human shield in an air raid - both of which didn't result in casualties.

Did anyone catch Jon Stewart tonight (last night)? It was interesting to see him present a more balanced (albeit comedic) view of the situation, he also openly questioned why American politicians can never criticize Israel in any way. Even his jokes suggested he doesn't suffer from the Israel-can-do-no-wrong syndrome. I was surprised.

2) Terrorism vs. legitimate war-whatever the situation in the past, Hamas is now the democratically-elected government of the Gaza territories. As such, when they started firing rockets into Israel after the truce expired, they committed an open act of war. When the government of one state attacks another state, they are in fact declaring war. The reality, that they attacked a superior, better trained, better equipped fighting force, doesn't in any way, shape or form diminish their own culpability.

We as a planet need to remember this. Israel, as a member state of the U.N., which the U.N. agreed to create back in 1948, has been condemned for exercising it's right to defend itself more than any other nation on the planet since its' inception. Have we ever stopped to ask ourselves why? What is the "undercurrent" that makes criticizing Israel so very easy, and so very satisfying? Is it anti-semitism, oil, fear of antagonizing a billion Muslims, or something more?

Do you really think that dropping bombs on densely populated residential areas in the hope of killing a Hamas militant is a valid and proportionate Israeli response? Israel has been condemned because it is in continual violation of international humanitarian laws and the Geneva Conventions, like no other nation. It is easy criticizing Israel on its human rights track record and its track record in violating international law, all of which has been well documented.

For example, Amnesty International in its report "Killing the Future: Children in the Line of Fire" stated:

Amnesty International said:

Children killed in attacks on residential areas and as bystanders during Israeli state assassinations. Israel has pursued a policy of extra-judicially executing Palestinians whom it accuses of having been involved in attacks on Israelis, instead of arresting them and bringing them to justice. Such practice is in breach of international standards. More than 20 children and 20 other bystanders have been killed during these state assassinations, in a policy which has been ordered and approved at the highest level of the Israeli government, including by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The attack destroyed the house of leading Hamas activist Salah Shehada, who was among those killed. Two other houses were completely destroyed, and four homes left uninhabitable. The Israeli authorities accused Salah Shehada of having been responsible for organizing a number of suicide attacks. Given the location of the target, in a densely populated civilian area, and the method of attack selected, those responsible for planning this attack must have known that civilians, including children, would be killed and wounded.

The report goes on to document a number of such incidents. The report also condemns Palestinian actions which have resulted in the deaths of Israeli children.

You don?t have to be an ?anti-Semite? to criticize Israel. People are very quick to apply the label ?anti-Semite!? whenever criticism is leveled at Israeli policy and the manner in which the IDF is employed in the Occupied Territories. The reality is that some of Israel?s biggest critics are Israeli human rights organizations such as B?Tselem and reporters such as Amira Haas and Gideon Levy from Haaretz newspaper, are they anti-semites too?

I've always thought that it was because of the large amount of Jews living in the U.S., of whom many would participate in an Israel Lobby. I have no idea how much of that is true, though. But I do know this:

So, demographically, it makes sense for the U.S.A. to back Israel (especially when you offset 6,5 million American Jews against the 1,4 million American Arabs). How much sense it makes to do that with as little reservation as it's currently being done I don't know.

Espy, how is neither side right when one has a country and the other doesn't, but is actively being annexed and occupied?

Because both are killing the other side. I will not describe people who commit violence against civilian populations with the intent to terrorize them anything other than "terrorists." That is what they are, and you can't change that, and has nothing to do with what side of the political spectrum you are.

You are just as blinded by hatred as people who support Israel. The only reason I would put Israel a little better is because they don't intentionally kill civilians, even if they intentionally cut them off and make it difficult for them to live.

Not at all; I don't particularly care for Palestinians or Israelis. My concern is with violations of human rights, which have been systematically committed by Israel - many times more than by Palestinians. If it were the other way 'round, I'd be arguing for the other side. The blindness of the West toward these violations makes our position vulnerable, especially since we're always waving the banner of freedom and democracy. Our nations' ideas of freedom and democracy as our representatives display them in the Middle East are hypocritical. That causes friction and hatred.

In essence, my position is only motivated by self-defense. I believe that, to create a safer world for ourselves, we must respect and promote human rights everywhere. And since this is right now the biggest humanitarian crisis anywhere, this would be a good place to start.

2) Terrorism vs. legitimate war-whatever the situation in the past, Hamas is now the democratically-elected government of the Gaza territories.

If so, then isn't it arguable that the people of Gaza are therefore supportive of Hamas's agenda that includes the elimination of Israel and the extermination of Jews?

LostOnHoth said:

Vaderize03 said:

As such, when they started firing rockets into Israel after the truce expired, they committed an open act of war. When the government of one state attacks another state, they are in fact declaring war. The reality, that they attacked a superior, better trained, better equipped fighting force, doesn't in any way, shape or form diminish their own culpability.

We as a planet need to remember this. Israel, as a member state of the U.N., which the U.N. agreed to create back in 1948, has been condemned for exercising it's right to defend itself more than any other nation on the planet since its' inception. Have we ever stopped to ask ourselves why? What is the "undercurrent" that makes criticizing Israel so very easy, and so very satisfying? Is it anti-semitism, oil, fear of antagonizing a billion Muslims, or something more?

Do you really think that dropping bombs on densely populated residential areas in the hope of killing a Hamas militant is a valid and proportionate Israeli response? Israel has been condemned because it is in continual violation of international humanitarian laws and the Geneva Conventions, like no other nation. It is easy criticizing Israel on its human rights track record and its track record in violating international law, all of which has been well documented.

For example, Amnesty International in its report "Killing the Future: Children in the Line of Fire" stated:

Amnesty International said:

Children killed in attacks on residential areas and as bystanders during Israeli state assassinations. Israel has pursued a policy of extra-judicially executing Palestinians whom it accuses of having been involved in attacks on Israelis, instead of arresting them and bringing them to justice. Such practice is in breach of international standards. More than 20 children and 20 other bystanders have been killed during these state assassinations, in a policy which has been ordered and approved at the highest level of the Israeli government, including by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The attack destroyed the house of leading Hamas activist Salah Shehada, who was among those killed. Two other houses were completely destroyed, and four homes left uninhabitable. The Israeli authorities accused Salah Shehada of having been responsible for organizing a number of suicide attacks. Given the location of the target, in a densely populated civilian area, and the method of attack selected, those responsible for planning this attack must have known that civilians, including children, would be killed and wounded.

The report goes on to document a number of such incidents. The report also condemns Palestinian actions which have resulted in the deaths of Israeli children.

Except the Palestinians intend to cause the death of Israeli children. The Israelis, have tried to avoid such deaths - and these deaths usually occur because Hamas has deliberately placed their rocket launchers near places like day care centers. At a number of times, Islamic terrorist

Except the Palestinians intend to cause the death of Israeli children. The Israelis, have tried to avoid such deaths - and these deaths usually occur because Hamas has deliberately placed their rocket launchers near places like day care centers.

Does it ever bother you that when you use this line of excuse you're basically condoning child killing because 'they did it first'? I mean, if I were driving drunk and I killed some children everyone would look very badly on that. But if I were stone sober and I just happened to lose control of my car then that's kinda okay because it was an 'accident'. Yet both scenarios had the same result. So, I fail to see how one is 'better' or more preferable to the other. The same rule applies here. Who the hell cares if it was an accident? You know a good way to avoid accidents? Don't respond to missile attacks by launching more missiles.

Hamas doesn't care about Palestinian suffering, and is using the palestinians to attempt to force the destruction of Israel, either through war or diplomatically. I don't believe either is going to happen. Now, do I wish that Israel weren't dropping bombs? Of course I do, but my point is that they're responses have generally been a lot more measured than indiscriminately attacking civilians, which is what Hamas has been doing.

Israel's blockade of Gaza is no act of war when Hamas is importing weapons and then using them against Israel. If we're going to play the "who started it" game, which is kind of like trying to find the ends of a circle, then Hamas started it.

I would be delighted if they would sit down and try and hammer out a solution, but the rockets need to stop. Every time there is a cease-fire, Hamas simply re-arms and then attacks again, with better and better weapons.

By the way, I think the urge to attack anyone who mentions the term "anti-semitism" is just as knee-jerk and strong as the urge to use that phrase to describe anti-Israeli criticism. I'm not saying Israel shouldn't be criticized, I'm simply asking for a little balance and perspective, which tends to be absent when it comes to this conflict, and always skewed against Israel. The only country which seems willing to call out Hamas on it's own war crimes is the United States. Most other countries simply talk about how atrocious Israel is, and wondering whether or not anti-Semitism is part of that is not a reflexive excuse for their actions, it's a legitimate query.

It's obviously a lot more complicated than just that, but the question has been begged numerous times the world over.

Look, the point is, for this conflict to be solved, many hard questions are going to have to be asked. But they're going to need to be asked of the Palestinians, not just Israel, and Hamas's actions are going to need to come under the same level of scrutiny as Israel's.

So far, on an international level, that hasn't happened, by any objective standard. When was the last time the UN passed a resolution condemning rocket attacks against Israeli civilians?

Its been a while since I brushed up on it, but wasn't part of that some left over cold war politics involving proxy wars?

That's pretty much exactly what it is. The US has been notoriously lax in updating its foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. In fact the only ones to attempt updating it was started with Bush Snr. and... believe it or not, Bush II, though only with respect to Libya.

It was a late development too, probably largely a Reagan development that was strengthened even more under Clinton. Even as late as Nixon, there's clear instances of him giving his usual "Oh I don't give a damn about that place / those people" opinions towards Israel. Say what you want, but he was an equal oppertunity hater.

Eps is precisely right, though. I think the Palesinians COULD have been one of the great causes. They could have been greater and more enlightened than the struggle against Apartheid. Even thier original turn to violence in the 60s and Black September is understandable.

But the excesses this conflict has brought upon them and the degree to which it's been such an enabler for other less aggrieved muslims... how the fact the Palestinians have been treated now seems to give Saudi or Pakistani radicals some sort of moral higher ground that has no basis in reality... how they've taken clear oppertunities and turned them into mud...

The Israeli Zionists in thier original and certain later behaviors showed themselves to be arrogant, unempathic and incredibly selfish given the fact that they're somehow entitled to something Gypseys and Native Americans are not. The Palestinian extremists after a time showed themselves to be brutal, unempathic, and unreasonable given the situation and would rather kill more people and go on and on about how they're so dishonored than simply move on and make a go at thier own lives.

Are the two sides equal? No... they're two different situation. But by now looking at it from afar, the equality probably close enough.

Now, do I wish that Israel weren't dropping bombs? Of course I do, but my point is that they're responses have generally been a lot more measured than indiscriminately attacking civilians, which is what Hamas has been doing.

Hamas doesn't care about Palestinian suffering, and is using the palestinians to attempt to force the destruction of Israel, either through war or diplomatically. I don't believe either is going to happen. Now, do I wish that Israel weren't dropping bombs? Of course I do, but my point is that they're responses have generally been a lot more measured than indiscriminately attacking civilians, which is what Hamas has been doing.

Israel's blockade of Gaza is no act of war when Hamas is importing weapons and then using them against Israel. If we're going to play the "who started it" game, which is kind of like trying to find the ends of a circle, then Hamas started it.

I would be delighted if they would sit down and try and hammer out a solution, but the rockets need to stop. Every time there is a cease-fire, Hamas simply re-arms and then attacks again, with better and better weapons.

By the way, I think the urge to attack anyone who mentions the term "anti-semitism" is just as knee-jerk and strong as the urge to use that phrase to describe anti-Israeli criticism. I'm not saying Israel shouldn't be criticized, I'm simply asking for a little balance and perspective, which tends to be absent when it comes to this conflict, and always skewed against Israel. The only country which seems willing to call out Hamas on it's own war crimes is the United States. Most other countries simply talk about how atrocious Israel is, and wondering whether or not anti-Semitism is part of that is not a reflexive excuse for their actions, it's a legitimate query.

It's obviously a lot more complicated than just that, but the question has been begged numerous times the world over.

Look, the point is, for this conflict to be solved, many hard questions are going to have to be asked. But they're going to need to be asked of the Palestinians, not just Israel, and Hamas's actions are going to need to come under the same level of scrutiny as Israel's.

So far, on an international level, that hasn't happened, by any objective standard. When was the last time the UN passed a resolution condemning rocket attacks against Israeli civilians?

Peace,

V-03

This is what they call cognitive dissonance, you are blind to the fact that other people also condemn Hamas because you don't feel like seeing it. Just one example, Sarkozy met Olmert over the crisis, look up the footage and you'll see Sarkozy vocally condemning Hamas. It was just mentioned by the way, that the Amnesty International article goes on to critize the actions of Hamas, why are you ignoring that?

The UN can't pass a resolution because the PA is not a recognised government, there's nobody to condemn. Hamas is internationally classified as a terrorist organisation, that should prove to you the point that they aren't seen as being using acceptable methods.

Hamas is an extremist organisation that vocally claims it wants Israel gone, Israel claims that it wants peace. One of the two isn't acting in accordance with what they claim they are doing, which one do you think it is?

This current conflict is, and I'll repeat this, just strenghtening Hamas. Do you really think that the Palestinians who are losing family, wives, children here, are going to come out of this conflict think that they should do away with Hamas? I'll refer you to some threads that were made afte r9/11 if you want to see how Americans by large reacted on an emotional level. This is just going to start a wave of terrorist bombings, again. It's not going to do anything to make Israel safer, it's purely a show of force to give their own population a sense of security. That's it, election time.

Oh and, don't convienently forget the settlement there. It's slightly more complex than you're making it out to be. Hamas exists in part because these people can't just get up every day and lead a normal lif elike you and me. Poverty, abuse and violence breeds situations like this.

Now, do I wish that Israel weren't dropping bombs? Of course I do, but my point is that they're responses have generally been a lot more measured than indiscriminately attacking civilians, which is what Hamas has been doing.

What are they supposed to do, let Hamas and Hezbollah fire rockets at their civilians?

How about working on a solution for the causes, not the sympthoms? Most Palestinians are like you and me, if you give them something to live for, a life that has persepective, support for Hamas will die away on its own and they'll be able to take them down themselves. The current path is just preparing a whole new generation for a life of violence.

Hamas is an extremist organisation that vocally claims it wants Israel gone, Israel claims that it wants peace. One of the two isn't acting in accordance with what they claim they are doing, which one do you think it is?

In a comparison that's all too-appropriate, Hitler said the same thing. The fact one is hypocritical and the other not doesn't make one better than the other.

It's true there's nothing precisely for the UN to condemn in the same way it can condemn ISrael because Hamas is not a fully recognized government. Just what it is, is uncertain: but then has Hamas declared itself and Gaza to be an independant nation?

We shouldn't act that one is any different than the other at this point. The differences have become semantics. Hamas represents a people oppressed, but those same people are by now reveling almost maschoistically in thier own oppression. "Oh the Israelis, they're so BAD.... see how BAD they are to us? Wait, wait, look, we haven't told you about how BAD they've gotten lately."

It's almost like a rejected partner from an abusive relationship that sits on the couch all day years after the fact and can't stop talking about how bad it was and how they were maltreated. Enough alreaady: yes, we GET it. It was bad... now can you please get up, move out and get a job? You've got all you need to do to make the best of it, and all you ever do is sit around complaining. Oh, except insert "acts of violence". for complaining

Israel, for its part, even to this day talks it's high-minded words about trying to "avoid" civilian casualties when it seems plain as day it's mostly just to keep up appearances. Were the situation reversed, each would adopt the other's rationale. I seriously doubt the Israeli politicians go home at night fretting about Palestinian civilians, or the soldier loading the next round into his tank cannon stops for even a split second to thing "man, I sure hope this one doesn't kill some civilians". Hell no, they think: "How's THIS for some payback?"

Which is precisely what the Hamas opertaives think when they launch another rocket. These guys have had thier payback. And then payback for the payback. And then payback for the payback for the payback. And then payback for the payback for the payback for the...

Whatever. Evict the lot of them, and just give the land to Roger Waters or something.

What are they supposed to do, let Hamas and Hezbollah fire rockets at their civilians?

How about working on a solution for the causes, not the sympthoms? Most Palestinians are like you and me, if you give them something to live for, a life that has persepective, support for Hamas will die away on its own and they'll be able to take them down themselves. The current path is just preparing a whole new generation for a life of violence.

The cause seems to me to be this bunch of genocidal maniacs in Hamas. You don't really have many options when it comes to dealing with such maniacs: You either kill them or they kill you and yours.

What sort of compromise is possible with Hamas? Let them only kill half of the Jews? Give me a break!

GAP wasn't talking about helping Hamas out. He was referring to the Palestinian people. If you actually let them move forward as a culture instead of condemning them to death and poverty then groups like Hamas will fade away. How hard is that to understand?

The UN can't pass a resolution because the PA is not a recognised government, there's nobody to condemn. Hamas is internationally classified as a terrorist organisation, that should prove to you the point that they aren't seen as being using acceptable methods.

Hamas is an extremist organisation that vocally claims it wants Israel gone, Israel claims that it wants peace. One of the two isn't acting in accordance with what they claim they are doing, which one do you think it is?

You accuse me of cognitive dissonance, then you post what is written above.

A little intellectual honesty is called for. I never said Hamas wasn't "ever" criticized, I said that the level of criticism was disproportionate. I stand by that statement. Watch the BBC news coverage, with it's focus on palestinian casualties and the story today of the school Israel hit, and you will notice that the kindergarten Hamas rocketed yesterday doesn't get a mention. Granted, it was empty, but that was foresight, and more than a little luck.

Hiding behind Hamas's status is a cop-out and leads to exactly the type of circular, and frankly cowardly, thinking that has allowed this conflict to continue. Hamas got itself elected, and recognition by the UN or no, is the legitimate government of the Gaza territories. As such, it committed an act of war against Israel by firing rockets. Pointing to technicalities may be viscerally satisfying, but it isn't going to lead to any solutions.

As far as your final sentence goes, I'm sorry, but you've got to be kidding me. Neither side is truly acting in accord with what it wants, but only one side is being honest in it's statements, and it ain't Hamas.